 | Board of Visitors minutes October 9, 1953 |  |
ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE
The Rector opened discussion of the proposal to join the Atlantic Coast Athletic
Conference, which was the primary business of the meeting, by presenting to the Board the
following documents
1. Letter from the Lynchburg Chapter of the Alumni Association, enclosing copy of a
motion endorsing entry into the Atlantic Coast Conference. Copies have been sent to members of
the Board.
2. Letter from Mr. Robert E. Taylor, a Charlottesville alumnus, in favor of joining
the Atlantic Coast Conference.
3. A mimeographed "Pro and Con" list, prepared by Mr. Gus K. Tebell, citing eight
arguments in favor of and seven arguments against membership in the Atlantic Coast Conference.
A copy is filed with the Secretary.
4. Letter from the University Athletic Council urging a decision by the Board in
favor of ACC membership.
The President read a letter from the Maryland Chapter of the Alumni Association reporting
that the Council of the Chapter is opposed to ACC membership by a 17 to 2 majority.
Mr. Hunter Faulconer, President of the Alumni Association of the University, was presented
to the Board by the Rector.
Mr. Faulconer spoke, in substance, as follows: I have nothing official to report. The
Board of Managers discussed the ACC proposal at our last meeting three weeks ago. There are
rabid people on each side. No vote was taken. I have heard from a few chapters, and most of
them were split. There is general approval of the program of the last fifteen years. We must
have the program as we've had it in order to get the high school students. The Maryland and
Washington chapters are strongly opposed to the new Conference.
Is Maryland the big obstacle with our people in Maryland and Washington?
Answer:
Yes.
Mr. Black:
How about others, Wake Forest for example?
Answer:
They never get that far. They stop at Maryland.
What conditions exist today which change the picture from what it was when
we withdrew from the Southern Conference in 1936?
Answer:
We've changed. The honor system was the point then. We required athletes to
sign a pledge that they received no aid outside of their families.
Mr. Talbott:
Under the Graham Plan, the Southern Conference permitted no aid, though
everyone knew it was given in many cases. The NCAA rulings are more realistic.
Mr. Black:
But wouldn't we be under obligations to the NCAA which our President would
sign and which our President would fulfill? Do you think that Maryland and Wake Forest, for
example, might violate them, just as North Carolina did in the old Conference? Then we would
have the same old conditions which drove us out of the Southern Conference.
Mr. Talbott:
But we now have the NCAA as a yardstick and a policing authority to whom the
President could appeal.
Following expressions of misgiving on this point by Messrs. Black and Gay, Mr. Gravatt
stated that in our Southern Conference days everybody gave lip service to Simon pure amateurism,
while many followed a contrary rule in practice. Any financial aid meant professionalism in the
Olympics and everywhere else. We were in a hypocritical and impossible situation. Our athletes
were discriminated against, as compared with other students, having to sign a no-aid pledge, or
have one signed for them. By our independent stand, we have influenced athletics into a saner
approach. Subsidies are now generally allowed if handled through regular scholarship committees.
It is true that at some institutions scholastic work is tampered with, and other evils arise.
Mr. Coxe:
Do ACC members have to obey NCAA rules?
Answer:
Yes.
Mr. Black:
Then if we enter the ACC and play Maryland, we will know that, in the opinion
of our Alumni groups, Maryland will violate the ACC rules?
Answer:
Yes.
Mr. Gay:
Have the ACC rules been adopted?
Answer:
Only in part, Southern Conference rules will be binding until ACC rules are
completed.
Mr. Gravatt:
Schools like North Carolina and Duke are in the Conference. I think we
have mutuality of thought with those schools. Our influence added to theirs would have great
weight towards insuring proper rules and real enforcement of them.
Mr. Carrington:
What is your personal opinion, Mr. Faulconer?
Answer:
I would like to join and be in on the rules making. It would be good for
all our minor sports. In spite of Maryland's mania on football, our relations have been good
in other sports.
Mr. Black:
Isn't scheduling a serious problem if we are not in a conference?
Answer:
Yes. Duke won't schedule us until we decide about the ACC. We would like membership
in the Ivy League, but can't get that. ACC membership will not limit us to competition in
that Conference. We couldn't enter unless allowed to play Virginia teams.
Mr. Gay:
Do you think that Alumni thought is sufficiently crystallized to allow
the Board to act in accord with Alumni wishes if it should choose to do so?
Answer:
No, you will be severely criticized, whatever you do.
The Rector thanked Mr. Faulconer, who then withdrew.
Mr. Nelson T. Offutt was next presented to the Board by the Rector, who asked if he
brought an official statement of opinion from the Student Aid Foundation.
Mr. Offutt:
I have three viewpoints to present. The Board of the Student Aid Foundation
met last Saturday, and voted 9 to 3 in favor of ACC membership, but they imposed conditions which
qualify their vote. The Maryland Alumni Council has voted 17 to 2 against membership. I am myself
strongly opposed to joining the ACC.
The nine members who voted for ACC membership stated that they are willing for the University
to join only upon condition that the Board of Visitors shall announce some athletic program
which will indicate strong backing for the ACC and the whole athletic program. By "strong
backing" they mean 100 per cent cooperation from the Board, the President, and the Faculty.
By "100 per cent cooperation" they mean a high priority on inter-collegiate athletics in the
conduct of University affairs; in the case of the Faculty, for example, they mean a lowering of
academic standards for the sake of winning teams.
Mr. Offutt then reiterated his strong aversion to ACC membership, stated his feelings
regarding an institution where Lacrosse teams are subsidized, and gave a vivid description of
athletic and academic practices in a "cooperative" institution.
Mr. Gravatt:
How would Acc membership affect our capacity to play these teams?
Answer:
As we are now, we can pick and choose, and we have a wide field to choose
from. None of these ACC schools has played Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and others of the
same caliber as we have done these last fifteen years. How will we get players if we are at
the bottom of a conference in which scholastic standards are being lowered?
Mr. Gay:
Isn't there scheduling trouble?
Answer:
It is so reported, but I don't believe it. If we really made the effort, we
could schedule other reputable schools, such as Dartmouth, Colgate, etc.
Mr. Talbott:
Mr. Tebell says that Ivy League schools cannot continue scheduling us
because they need big-money teams for any "extra", non-conference game.
Mr. Offutt:
Gentlemen, I urge that you do something, regardless of what it is. Please
don't procrastinate. I will support any decision you make.
Mr. Talbott:
What about the Foundation's request that we announce a decisive athletic
policy? What more can the Board do than was done in the former statement?
Answer:
I do not think there is anything more you can do. The demand was unreasonable.
As far as the faculty is concerned, I don't think they could ever all agree of a single policy.
Of course there are always rumors about faculty attitudes; but those concerning faculty prejudice
towards athletes have proved unfounded when investigated
Mr. Gravatt:
A weakening of academic standards would never be consented to by the Board
Answer:
It is my belief that Maryland, Wake Forest, Duke, and North Carolina State
will all lower scholastic standards.
In response to further questioning by Messrs. Carrington, Gay, and Gravatt, Mr. Offutt
reviewed his earlier arguments, with special emphasis on. (1) his fear of the competitive lure
of an easy degree, and (2) the strong psychological disadvantage of being in a conference and at
the bottom of it.
Mr. Offutt withdrew after being thanked by the Rector.
The Rector presented to the Board Mr. Mortimer Caplin, Chairman of the Athletic
("3-2-2") Council.
Mr. Caplin:
The Council has been much impressed with Meb Turner's views of the fine
effect of conference membership on the competitive spirit of teams, including the minor sports, when
conference titles are at stake. Scheduling of teams in minor sports is especially difficult for
non-conference members. Moreover, the Council feels that ACC membership will be a forthright
position, a continuation of a sane policy. We regret our late entrance if that will weaken our
influence in establishing proper rules.
Mr. Black:
Has the Council taken action by vote?
Answer:
Yes, last May and again on September 25th. The vote was unanimous, but there
was one absentee. The Council, you will recall, consists of three faculty members, two alumni,
and two students. Mr. Tebell attends meetings, but has no vote.
Mr. Gravatt:
Is there any crystallized faculty feeling?
Answer:
I can't answer that. The Law Faculty discussed the Gooch report, and took no
final action.
Judge Barksdale:
How do you fee about playing Maryland?
Answer:
I don't think we would be contaminated by one game a year.
Is the Ivy League a conference now?
Answer:
In practice, yes, Sir. They play each other.
Mrs. Smith:
How many free games would we have in the Conference? Could we still meet
our traditional rivals?
Mr. Talbott:
And would six conference games be a maximum in the ACC?
Answer:
Yes, we would have three free games. If we adopt a ten-game schedule, as the
coach wants us to do, we would have four free games.
In response to further questioning by Messrs. Gay and Talbott, Mr. Caplin expressed the
opinion that ACC rules are not yet finally formulated, that we would have a voice in their formulation
if we joined, and that we should insist on the adoption of NCAA rules. The Rector then thanked
Mr. Caplin, who withdrew from the meeting.
The Rector presented Mr. Gus K. Tebell to the Board, and asked for his opinions on the
proposed joining of the ACC.
Mr. Tebell reviewed his "Pro and Con" list, previously submitted, with special emphasis
on football as an economic factor, scheduling problems, and minor sports competition. Minor
sports, he added, are no longer "minor", the same Varsity letter being given for all.
Judge Barksdale:
Can we get Ivy League games?
Answer:
We cannot get Harvard until two years from now. We may be able to schedule
Dartmouth and Pennsylvania.
Mrs. Smith:
Can we schedule Princeton?
Answer:
No. The ACC has been set up as a "playing" conference, requiring six games.
Duke will not schedule us unless we enter. As regards other sports, we haven't played North
Carolina or Duke in basketball for ten years. The Southern Conference has required a 14-game
schedule inside the Conference.
Mr. Gay:
How much subsidization is there in other sports?
Answer:
There is very little outside of football and basketball.
Mr. Black:
Have the ACC rules been adopted?
Answer:
A rules committee has been appointed. Southern Conference rules are in force
for the present.
Mr. Talbott:
Do Southern Conference rules agree with ours?
Answer:
Not entirely. The Southern Conference requires players to pass 12 semester
hours of class work. We require 9 hours. Their freshman rules are the same as ours. Freshmen
are not played.
Mr. Black:
How do you answer your own argument on your list of "Cons", what do we have
in common with Maryland, Wake Forest, and Clemson?
Answer:
The feeling against Maryland results from their recent ruthless attitude in
building a football team. We play them in all other sports, and relations are good. Wake Forest
has a fine president, and I think he will carry out his promise to square 'em away when they move
to the new location. Clemson I know little about.
Mr. Black:
To what extent will Maryland obey any rules?
Answer:
I believe that Maryland is really going to have a new administration, and I
think that there is a national tendency to level off in athletic policy. I believe Maryland will
fall in line with that tendency.
The Rector thanked Mr. Tebell, who then withdrew.
The Rector asked President Darden for a statement of his opinion.
Mr. Darden:
After long and careful reflection on this matter, I believe we ought to
remain independent. There are persuasive voices on both sides of this question. Gordon Gray
wants us in the Conference. The President of Duke has assured me that Duke will play us whenever
possible, whether we are in the Conference or not. The Virginia schools and George Washington
University have urged us either to join the Southern Conference or to stay independent.
There are three reasons for my view that we should remain independent. First of all,
I don't want to alienate the Maryland and Washington Alumni. They are close to this issue, and
they feel very strongly about it.
Then I am opposed to detaching the University from the other Virginia schools. I
think it would have a bad effect on our position within the State. North Carolina is in a
different position. She took three other North Carolina schools into the Conference with her.
If we apply the 12-hour rule here in athletics, we will actually be discriminating
against athletes, and we can't live with our football team. We will lose the players. Our
academic standards are high, and the scholastic gap between the smaller high schools and the
University is difficult. We have made great progress with this problem. There is a big increase
this year in the number of non-subsidized high school boys on our teams. We want these high
school boys. Our future strength in athletics, as in every other respect, lies with the high
school boys of Virginia.
The Gatlin incident is a case in point. Mr. Gatlin dropped football for the sake
of his education and his degree. He has succeeded in adjusting himself to the scholastic
standards here, and he will probably be able to play football again, without a subsidy, next year.
Mr. Coxe:
If we step up our nine-hour rule to the twelve-hour conference rule, I take
it we will be shutting out Virginia high school boys.
Mr. Darden:
The faculty here are cooperative in the sense that they are wholeheartedly
behind what we are doing. What has been said elsewhere about "cooperation" means nothing but a
lowering of standards.
Mr. Carrington:
If our nine-hour rule is lower, we will be subject to criticism.
Mr. Gravatt:
A nine-hour rule for first-year students and a twelve-hour rule thereafter
might be feasible.
Judge Barksdale:
The big gap is in the first year. The high school people do better
in the second and later years.
Mrs. Wailes:
This is true also in the other colleges.
Mr. Gay:
As a practical matter, would our scheduling of Virginia schools be affected
by ACC membership?
Mr. Darden:
No, but our joining the ACC and leaving them out would hurt us with them
and with their alumni.
Mrs. Smith:
If we join the ACC we will never have a chance to play Harvard, George
Washington, and similar teams.
Mr. Gay:
Should we sit down with a group who will violate any rules we adopt? I am
opposed to any such conference.
Mr. Talbott:
I am exceedingly reluctant to differ with the President's judgment, but
I do favor joining the ACC. The Department of Athletics is the only University department which
supports itself. We require Mr. Tebell to raise three-fourths of the money for running athletics.
Our athletics are commercialized whether we like it or not. If we remain aloof, we will in time
be unable to schedule Conference members like North Carolina. Revenues will diminish along with
interest in our program. But we cannot afford to raise money for athletics in the manner of the
University of Chicago. Nor are we in a position, like Oxford or Cambridge, to ignore athletics
and public relations. The Graham plan was like Prohibition. The ACC approach is an admission of
evils and a plan for their control. Our influence will be great in the ACC. Duke and North
Carolina want us there because they respect us and want our weight on their side. Within the
ACC, we can put our finger on a bad actor and hold him up before the NCAA. I am heartily behind
our whole scholastic program. I think we should stick by it, join the ACC, adopt the twelve-hour
rule, and lose football players if we must.
We will be a conspicuous target if it appears that our reason is really a
weaker scholastic standard as measured in hours.
Mr. Coxe:
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Talbott
Mr. Darden:
We shouldn't be too final about joining a conference until we have a positive
invitation to join.
Mrs. Wailes:
I hope the larger issues will not be lost sight of. We should be mindful
of the overriding importance of scholastic affairs, and our position in Virginia and in the country
as an educational institution.
Judge Barksdale:
I am inclined to favor the ACC. I am doubtful that there would be
political injury, and most Alumni I know are in favor of it. I believe that the prospect of ACC
membership is already drawing students here.
Mrs. Smith:
Wouldn't we have a static condition in our schedule?
Mr. Darden:
We could rotate within the Conference, and we could rotate among the
Virginia teams.
Mr. Gravatt:
I doubt that North Carolina and Duke will actually play us outside of the
Conference. We have the athletic program, the subsidized athletes, and the scholarships. The
financial problem raised by Mr. Talbott is important. The twelve-hour requirement is even more
important. It is the most critical and troublesome issue that has been raised. We should be
very sure of a solution to this, such as a differing standard for freshmen and second year men
before we join.
Mr. Talbott:
I feel the great importance of the scholastic question raised by Mrs.
Wailes. To my mind, however, the athletic program is basic to everything else. Our overall
strength will depend on a healthy athletic situation.
Mr. Black:
If we join, we will be returning to exactly the same situation we withdrew
from in the Southern Conference. Rules will be laid down; we will obey them, others will violate
them. One ACC member is reported to have been found in violation of Southern Conference rules
on the day the ACC was organized. Another is reported to guarantee degrees to football players.
In such an alliance we will find ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation. Our Alumni
are not in support of ACC membership. In Washington and Maryland they are opposed, in Norfolk
they are split, they are split elsewhere, as shown in the report brought to us by the Alumni Council.
At the request of the Rector, Mr. Talbott then presented the following resolution, which
was adopted by a six to four vote:
RESOLVED by the Board of Visitors of the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
that the President of the University be and he is hereby authorized to accept an invitation
to membership in the Atlantic Coast Athletic Conference, provided that no conditions of membership
are imposed which conflict with the athletic policies of the University, and provided that an
invitation is received.
Voting for the resolution: Visitors Barksdale, Carrington, Coxe, Gravatt, Mears, and Talbott.
Against the resolution: Rector Black and Visitors: Mrs. Smith, Wailes, and Wheeler.
It was ruled that the opinion favorable to ACC membership expressed by Dr. Emmett in his
letter should not count as a vote, and that the unfavorable opinion expressed by Mr. Gay should not
be counted.
Mr. Gay had been obliged, for reasons beyond his control, to withdraw from the meeting
before the resolution came to a vote. He asked that his opposition to joining the ACC be placed in
the record, and he stated that if he could remain for the vote, his vote would be against the
resolution.
On motion, the meeting was then adjourned.
Rector
Secretary
| Board of Visitors minutes October 9, 1953 | |